|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Sept 13, 2014 0:43:33 GMT -5
News! I was doing a search and accidentally discovered this information about KCNet.
(quote) "KCNetwork, was formed in June 2010 to supply Internet Services to an area around S-bag Lake Resort, after our previous supplier went out of business . We have built a World Class internet system and are presently supplying internet services second to none.
For the 2014-2015 season we have decided to make several changes, all designed to simplify the accounting and to save time which we no longer have. As in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 we offer two classes of internet service."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" A NEW CORPORATION IS BORN IN SLohA " 
KCNETWORK (Read Below)
(quote)
"Last Spring we announced that we were not going to take new customers after the Summer 2014: Two things have happen to modify this plan.
1) Many home owners contacted us in the Spring to be sure they would be able to get new service this Fall for their renters. We said OK.
2)We reached a tentative agreement to sell KCNetworks to a "New Corporation" that has been formed to focus on selling bulk internet services to HOAs and Condo Associations throughout the US, but starting in Florida. One of our terms of sale is that they continue to serve S-bag and the surrounding area. We bid one very large Condo Association and are in the process of bidding several S-bag size HOAs. The results will be in from these efforts in the next few weeks."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" NOTE SADLY " (quote)
"CHUG ROOM'S Free Service:
Sadly, we are going to need to end the free internet access at the CHUG ROOM and Clubhouse to NON CHUG Members. The name of the open access point has been changed to: CHUG_Members_Only and will be available for free during September."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now For The Big Question ? "WHO ARE THE PLAYERS in The New Corporation?"  |
|
|
|
Post by courious on Sept 13, 2014 9:00:14 GMT -5
News! I was doing a search and accidently discovered this information about KCNet.
(quote) "KCNetwork, was formed in June 2010 to supply Internet Services to an area around S-bag Lake Resort, after our previous supplier went out of business . We have built a World Class internet system and are presently supplying internet services second to none.
For the 2014-2015 season we have decided to make several changes, all designed to simplify the accounting and to save time which we no longer have. As in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 we offer two classes of internet service."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " A NEW CORPORATION IS BORN IN SLohA " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ KCNETWORK  (READ BELOW)
(quote)
"Last Spring we announced that we were not going to take new customers after the Summer 2014: Two things have happen to modify this plan.
1) Many home owners contacted us in the Spring to be sure they would be able to get new service this Fall for their renters. We said OK.
2)We reached a tentative agreement to sell KCNetworks to a "New Corporation" that has been formed to focus on selling bulk internet services to HOAs and Condo Associations throughout the US, but starting in Florida. One of our terms of sale is that they continue to serve S-bag and the surrounding area. We bid one very large Condo Association and are in the process of bidding several S-bag size HOAs. The results will be in from these efforts in the next few weeks."
" NOTE SADLY " 
(quote)
"CHUG ROOM Free Service: Sadly, we are going to need to end the free internet access at the CHUG ROOM and Clubhouse to NON CHUG Members. The name of the open access point has been changed to: CHUG_Members_Only and will be available for free during September."
Now For The Big Question ? "WHO ARE THE PLAYERS" in The New Corporation?  Good question---"WHO ARE THE PLAYERS..."? THAT SHOULD BE EASY TO FOLLOW. STARTED WITH THE "RED HERRING" MANBOD THREW OUT TO SADDLEBAGGERS... THOSE BAD PEOPLE WITH A FRONT PORCH. AND THE SIDE CARPORT. WHY THEY ARE RUINING S-bag. USE SOMEONE ELSE TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON AND OTHERS CAN GET AWAY WITH ANY THING THEY WISH. EVER WONDER WHY EVERY TIME THERE IS A VOTE AGAINST A RESIDENTS THE WHOLE BOARD VOTES AS ONE SINGLE VOTE AGAINST THE OWNER? NOT ONE BOARD MEMBERS SWAYS FROM THE POSITION OF "ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL". ADD TO THAT THAT WHAT EVER THE MANAGER AND THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY WANTS, THEY GET. HMM, AND THE MANAGEMENT BOOKKEEPER IS NOW ANSWERING LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE NOT EVEN CC'D TO THE BOARD. SHOULD I CONTINUE? |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 13, 2014 9:39:21 GMT -5
K C Ntwerk/Internet Bb said:
It doesn't require a rocket scientist to guess who is part of the "tentative agreement". I wonder if there is a contract, since Internet Bb has denied the need or existence of contracts and agreements in the past. Also, recognize that Bb stab speaks only for his own corporate interests and has no special permissions to distort S-bag business--which is not "telecommunications". The only people who can attempt to corrupt the true business mission of SLohA are are BOD in collusion with the Management Company.
This development should not come as too much of a surprise, even from a known blowhard. KL blurted out the intention of the "privileged" in a February 2014 Board meeting before resigning.
A momentary walk down Memory Lane; the part about soliciting bids in February was a lie. That did not occur until the first week in May after everyone had gone back home. Bid solicitation (one week's ads paid for by SLohA) was not discussed or announced by BOD; it occurred secretly and was "accidentally discovered" and published here.
BOD and KCN have been attempting to "influence" owners to buy internet service for a couple years now. Owners have said "NO" on a ballot twice. The statement above was a thinly-veiled threat that there would be no further sampling of owner opinion. BOD thought it had the legal right to force mandatory internet down owners' throats under the FL statute 720.309.
That Statute does not apply to S-bag in the opinion of two HOA attorneys. This has been discussed at length elsewhere. But the general reason is that SLohA was incorporated under FS617 and its Covenant and Articles of Incorporation did not express an intent to bind itself to future legislative changes in Florida law. In other words, S-bag is governed by whatever laws existed when it was incorporated in 1972 as those laws relate to vested property rights. When SLohA was incorporated, FS720.309 --the "309" provision--did not exist --back then (the 70's) there was no cottage industry "bulk telecommunications services". That provision was added in 2011. Post-incorporation legislative changes not permitted by the Covenants cannot be retroactively applied unless specifically permitted in the governing documents. SLohA has no such permission in its governing documents. This has been upheld by courts.
That being said, as Morgan & Morgan warns in its commercial "Justice is not automatic". This board does not read or comprehend SLohA governing documents or any law and will undoubtedly want to spend more legal fees on this issue at such time that owners fight back against an illegal assessment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Sept 13, 2014 11:27:00 GMT -5
BAG LADY, THE WRITE G IS ON THE WALL FOR FUTURE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LEGAL FEES. HOWEVER, THE MANBOD WILL BLAME RESIDENTS THAT SLohA BROUGHT LAWSUITS AGAINST AS TO WHY LEGAL FEES ARE SO HIGH.
I WANT TO GO ON RECORD RIGHT HERE THAT I, Lra Tmyk, RECEIVED WRITTEN APPROVAL BEFORE MY UNIT ARRIVED AND THEN APPROVAL ON THE DAY OUR UNIT ARRIVED BY MANAGEMENT. AND THAT SLohA IS SUING ME NOT ME SUING THEM. I HAVE JUST SOLD ALL OF MY COINS, MOST OF MY JEWELRY AND MY LAST Sm all STOCK INVESTMENT JUST IN DEFENSE OF MYSELF. I HAVE NOTHING BUT MY CAR WORTH $3,000 LEFT IN MY NAME.
SO WHEN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS HIT, NO ONE WILL HAVE PAID A HIGHER PRICE THAN ME.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 13, 2014 12:30:20 GMT -5
Now is a shameful time in S-bag history and you have paid a huge price for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time". I fervently hope that justice favors you and that you come out on the other side of this ugliness with your material losses restored. Sadly, court victories and cost awards can never restore the feeling of safety and peace of mind ripped from many targeted owners in this community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 14, 2014 9:16:25 GMT -5
An alert observer (maybe the Teary Shadow Squad) noticed at least one posting of FS 720.309 in the Pool Room. This, as you might recall, is the law that the "Privileged" intend to use as their defense at such time as they get sued by Owners for attempting to place an illegal bulk internet contract in S-bag.
Two things that the "thinking owners" should know:
1- The Posted Notice has been bastardized, just as the one posted last winter was. However, this is only evidence that the "Privileged" continue to ignore, bastardize and defraud the people who they swore they would serve. I will post the key differences in a followup post because...
2- ...it doesn't really matter what "309" says in FS720. S-bag was incorporated over 30 years prior to that law being enacted by the FL legislature and it does not apply to S-bag. Here is the contract provision that S-bag entered into with regard to "Agreements entered into by the Association" and this is the one that applies to today's business in S-bag. Further, there is no language anywhere in SLohA governing documents that states an intention to permit the contract to be modified substantively by future legislation. This is not ME speaking the law; I am simply reporting what TWO separate attorneys have related to me and posting the law content here.
As you can see from the above, the intent of this law was to control Developer behavior which bound the Association prior to turnover. This provision became functionally null and void in 1977 when S-bag Lake Resorts Inc deeded S-bag to the Association. Only the procedural elements subsequently adopted by Legislature "may" apply in S-bag's business operation.
The "taking" of material, vested property rights agreed to by all parties to the contract cannot be usurped or altered by FS720.309--according to the attorneys.
I hope that owners will mentally replace the word "covenants" with "contract"--because that is what the Covenants are (i.e. "Declaration)--a contract-- and referenced governing documents are--a contract. The Developer set forth the terms of the Covenants and said that they cannot be amended. Owners agreed to the contract by accepting a deed to the parcel. The Association's purpose is to administer and manage the terms and provisions of the contract. The laws of the State of Florida and the Homeowner Association Act specifically states it's purpose and specifically recognizes the superiority of contracts entered into before its existence in 2000:
and
|
|
|
|
Post by Reader on Sept 14, 2014 9:34:18 GMT -5
One thing about Law and "New Laws" THEY ARE NOT RETRO ACTIVE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Sept 14, 2014 9:45:12 GMT -5
The BOD-MANAGEMENT just don't want to understand that the MAJORITY VOTED NO on the Bulk Service Internet. Not once but TWICE.
NO MEANS NO. What part of a 2 (TWO) letter word don't they understand?
And as far as threats of a ''special assessment" go I wouldn't worry. That is Dbag's weak and pathetic bluff game I have called him on in the recent past.
This bunch of guys are equal to a few cards in a new deck. The "Jokers" are always discarded. Don't fall for their game, they really don't have one, hence the "BLUFF" .
Lets call them on it, I have every time and each time they have folded. Some have even left the table, Alan Rss & Kn Lws. GAME OVER DUMMY! (<DB). |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 14, 2014 13:56:32 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedThe easiest thing to do here is to mark the actual statute in RED as to all of the content that was OMITTED from the posted notice; you can fill in the blanks as to why these particular provisions were omitted. Anything that the unknown author added to the "notice" is written in GREEN. Note that the unknown author highlights the Point of the Post in yellow so that all owners "get it"! (Now, who do we know that hightlights everything...?) Incidentally, the posted notice is mis-named; the law is entitled "Agreements entered into by the Association"--not "Allocation for Cost of Bulk Communication Contracts" and was attributed to no one. Some of the actual written sentences occurred in NO VERSION of the statute, which was expanded in 2011 and one minor typo corrected in 2014. It occured to me that someone just as easily changes the laws of the state of Florida as they do the SLohA governing documents i.e. the Pinkbook. Here is the full text of the Unattributed Notice of the FS720.309 posted in the Pool Room (and perhaps elsewhere), as re-written by an unknown author: Just a comment about the above legislative change. When courts go about the business of resolving a dispute where legislative intent is key to the outcome, they must often go back to the original bill and committee notes to see "what problem the legislation was trying to solve". IMO, the legislation was remedial in intent to give homeowners and boards guidance on the adoption of bulk services contracts for telecommunications i.e. internet and telephone, which was missing from governing documents "older language" that addressed only cable TV. If one of the purposes of the HOA statute is to "protect the rights of association members", as claimed 720.302(1), I cannot see a reason other than "remedial" for the expanded provision. If the Board attempts to shove bulk services communications down the throats of homeowners, I guess we sH all see.
|
|
|
|
Post by courious on Sept 14, 2014 16:26:27 GMT -5
The easiest thing to do here is to mark the actual statute in RED as to all of the content that was OMITTED from the posted notice; you can fill in the blanks as to why these particular provisions were omitted. Anything that the unknown author added to the "notice" is written in GREEN. Note that the unknown author highlights the Point of the Post in yellow so that all owners "get it"! (Now, who do we know that hightlights everything...?) Incidentally, the posted notice is mis-named; the law is entitled "Agreements entered into by the Association"--not "Allocation for Cost of Bulk Communication Contracts" and was attributed to no one. Some of the actual written sentences occurred in NO VERSION of the statute, which was expanded in 2011 and one minor typo corrected in 2014. It occured to me that someone just as easily changes the laws of the state of Florida as they do the SLohA governing documents i.e. the Pinkbook. Here is the full text of the Unattributed Notice of the FS720.309 posted in the Pool Room (and perhaps elsewhere), as re-written by an unknown author: Just a comment about the above legislative change. When courts go about the business of resolving a dispute where legislative intent is key to the outcome, they must often go back to the original bill and committee notes to see "what problem the legislation was trying to solve". IMO, the legislation was remedial in intent to give homeowners and boards guidance on the adoption of bulk services contracts for telecommunications i.e. internet and telephone, which was missing from governing documents "older language" that addressed only cable TV. If one of the purposes of the HOA statute is to "protect the rights of association members", as claimed 720.302(1), I cannot see a reason other than "remedial" for the expanded provision. If the Board attempts to shove bulk services communications down the throats of homeowners, I guess we sH all see. QUESTION: "WHY WAS SUCH A NOTICE POST ED IN THE POOL/BILLARD CLUBHOUSE AREA AND NOT IN THE SHUFFLEBOARD, TENNIS, HORSE SHOE, TRAVEL CLUB, GOLF CLUB, OR CHUG BOARDS? I JUST WENT THROUGH ALL THOSE AREA AND SAW NOTHING. OH, NOTHING WAS POST ED IN DE E'S PRIVATE POKER ROOM EITHER. |
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Sept 15, 2014 10:55:59 GMT -5
The easiest thing to do here is to mark the actual statute in RED as to all of the content that was OMITTED from the posted notice; you can fill in the blanks as to why these particular provisions were omitted. Anything that the unknown author added to the "notice" is written in GREEN. Note that the unknown author highlights the Point of the Post in yellow so that all owners "get it"! (Now, who do we know that hightlights everything...?) Incidentally, the posted notice is mis-named; the law is entitled "Agreements entered into by the Association"--not "Allocation for Cost of Bulk Communication Contracts" and was attributed to no one. Some of the actual written sentences occurred in NO VERSION of the statute, which was expanded in 2011 and one minor typo corrected in 2014. It occured to me that someone just as easily changes the laws of the state of Florida as they do the SLohA governing documents i.e. the Pinkbook. Here is the full text of the Unattributed Notice of the FS720.309 posted in the Pool Room (and perhaps elsewhere), as re-written by an unknown author: Just a comment about the above legislative change. When courts go about the business of resolving a dispute where legislative intent is key to the outcome, they must often go back to the original bill and committee notes to see "what problem the legislation was trying to solve". IMO, the legislation was remedial in intent to give homeowners and boards guidance on the adoption of bulk services contracts for telecommunications i.e. internet and telephone, which was missing from governing documents "older language" that addressed only cable TV. If one of the purposes of the HOA statute is to "protect the rights of association members", as claimed 720.302(1), I cannot see a reason other than "remedial" for the expanded provision. If the Board attempts to shove bulk services communications down the throats of homeowners, I guess we sH all see. Note A -
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Organization
S-bag Lake Owners Association, Inc. (the Association) was incorporated in Florida in
November 1972 pursuant to Chapter 617, Florida Statues. The Association is a homeowners’
association responsible for the operation and maintenance of the common property within a
development consisting of 790 residential lots located on S-bag Lake, which is near Lake Wales, in
central Florida.
The common property consists of administrative, clubhouse, laundries and other buildings, a
water and sewer plant, recreation facilities such as a swimming pool and tennis courts, streets,
drainage systems, and other related infrastructure.
Basis of Presentation
The fmancial statements of the Association are prepared on the accrual basis of accounting
whereby assessments and revenues are recorded when due and expenses are recognized when
incurred.
Fund Accounting
The Association’s Bylaws provide certain guideLines for governing its financial activities. To
ensure observance of limitations and restrictions on the use of financial resources, the Association
maintains its accounts using fund accounting. Financial resources are classified for accounting and
reporting purposes in the following funds established according to their nature and purpose:
Operating Fund -
This fund is used to account for financial resources available for the current
general operations of the Association.
Replacement Fund -
This fund is used to accumulate financial resources designated for future
major repairs, replacements, and improvements.
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported
amounts and disclosures. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, the Association considers all highly liquid
investments purchased with a maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents.
8
NOTE that this information refers to Statute 617 and NOT Statute 720. This information comes from SLohA Auditors Report. WHY don't our Board members notice that their claim of Statute 720 DOES NOT APPLY?
Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 15, 2014 11:28:08 GMT -5
Here is my list of Possible Reasons:
1-They consider all laws to be merely "suggestions", especially SLohA governing documents, and subject to editing by SLohA
2-BOD would have to actually read both laws! The differences between 617 and 720 are too difficult to understand
3-That is the Auditors' Opinion and they weren't consulted. You must go to CHUG website or to the Office for the truth
4-Their Management Company's attorney said to just ignore it and people will lose interest and go away
5-The applicability to this particular issue is too nuanced for BOD's level of comprehension
6-Board members are claiming nothing--"legal" notices are created and posted by unknown agents on plain paper
7-BOD prefers to spend owners' money for an attorney opinion, ignore the advice and then S u e the owners
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Sept 15, 2014 13:47:25 GMT -5
$$$$$$$ would that be a Reason... Nah !!!
|
|
Expose
Pilgrim
"Always Seek The Truth"
Posts: 43
|
Post by Expose on Sept 15, 2014 22:46:35 GMT -5
B ob S., and the Newly Formed Corporation; "ROCKS".
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Sept 16, 2014 10:17:34 GMT -5
Looked out my back window today to see someone climbing on the KCNetwork next to the tennis courts. Jm FoolDay from the Violations committee was overseeing the project. What is his interest in this project? Could it be new placement? Up-grading? New base per Polk County permits department? And why involve our specialized Violation committee? Maybe he is part of the "New Corporation".
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Sept 16, 2014 12:24:18 GMT -5
Monday at the KK Meeting, someone stated that the new Tennis Courts construction would begin on Tuesday 9/16. Just maybe that the Tower's guy-wires are in the way of the construction area. So, it could be they are relocating the guy-wires, or removing one. I do not have a Clue why Mr. FoolDay is involved, he may just be a curious resident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2015 14:02:43 GMT -5
Bb St aib Posted on CHUG:
Can't do anything about your perceptions and interpretations of my comments on social media. But I really do like my new nickname "Snap, Crackle Pop"!
Bb stab Posted on CHUG:
Relax Bb--everything will work out as it is supposed to. I wonder why you didn't bother to attend the planned meeting with the County on Jan 9th. The facts are in the ACTUAL Complaints and Summary Updates posted here.
You can make your own case with your own facts to the only people that matter--the Polk County Legal Counsel and Land Planning/Code Enforcement Staff.
Don't take things so personally! No sense in making yourself sick worrying about what a bad person I am.
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Feb 22, 2015 20:13:27 GMT -5
Bb (KCNet), We are hungry for information about what was posted back in Sept.2014, about a New Corporation in being formed, as KCNetwork is in the process of being sold. Did that transaction hit a snag? Please reply when you have the time to spare.
Thanks, Kay c-Netter
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Mar 25, 2015 9:03:38 GMT -5
Several months have past and still no news about a KCNet Sale or any New Corporation formed. The backers must have felt it was a bad time to invest, seeing Polk County is now involved in the commercial enterprise in SLR.
|
|
(READ BELOW)
